When somebody explained to me how publishing in science works, this is what it felt like
not saying it's all bad
but it should be better pic.twitter.com/IzTeWYXzL6
— Simon Hoser (@GenieOfGenes) February 27, 2020
I beg you will watch this at least twice.
The “And if they want to publish they have to pay a shitload of money for it” refers to page charges, the name for scientific vanity publishing.
Beside all that, peer review enforces mediocrity and political correctness. Look at the scandal in certain fields, like global warming, where work which challenges the official Consensus won’t be published, as Climategate showed us.
Peer review is not in the least necessary, either. If there still should be journals, then an intelligent editor can dictatorially decide which papers go in and which not. Like it used to be. And like it still is in other magazines. Then rival magazines can emerge. If necessary.
And they aren’t especially necessary, except as overviews. A system like Arxiv.org would work fine.
Except given all this SCOPUS and ratings rah rah, and publish or perish, we have a system that is broken and will eventually collapse. This is why I always when reviewing bad science papers emphasize the papers have been peer reviewed.
If you don’t think it’s so bad, take a look-see at this peer-reviewed wonder.
“A feminist coven in the university” in Gender, Place & Culture by a bunch of university-employed ladies.
Inspired by Sara Ahmed’s call to study what is near to you, we write about our sometimes-joyful, sometimes-furious, always passionate struggles as graduate students in the academy. As a site of imperialism, racism, and patriarchy, the university grinds especially hard on women, people of color, black, indigenous, queer, disabled, and otherwise oppressed scholars. Out of a desire not just to get by or get ahead in this hostile space of competition and scarcity, we write about a feminist praxis that subverts the academy. Using collaborative auto-ethnography, asynchronous online interviews, and co-theorization, we conjure a network of rebels – what we call the feminist coven. We solicited contributions from feminist graduate students in response to three prompts about forms of communication, emotional labor, and imaginaries. Our findings show a vibrant landscape of creativity, love, rage, and longing for academia to be a more hospitable place. We and our contributors, whose voices pepper this article, offer ideas for how to summon new worlds and ways of being through small actions and everyday practices, subverting the violence of the academy by being the storm that blows through it.
Ladies talking about their feelings, and deciding that their problems are all caused by men, is now top science.
It is! Like popular voting in democracies decides what is good, moral, and true, then peer review decides what is worthy, interesting, and scientific.